Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only thing you need have faith in is that if you allow the GOP to take control of the White House and retain control of the House by not voting for their opposition, which just so happens to be the Democrats at this point in time, you risk the very future of this country. Republicans have put this nation on an ever deepening spiral into Third World status with their repressive economic policies. There is almost no middle class anymore.
The government safety net has been cast far and wide, with almost half of all American households now receiving some form of government assistance. But most taxpayers will be asking why when they learn who is receiving what.
From tax write-offs for gambling losses, vacation homes, and luxury yachts to subsidies for their ranches and estates, the government is subsidizing the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Multimillionaires are even receiving government checks for not working. This welfare for the well-off – costing billions of dollars a year – is being paid for with the taxes of the less fortunate, many who are working two jobs just to make ends meet, and IOUs to be paid off by future
generations.
This is not an accidental loophole in the law. To the contrary, this reverse Robin Hood style of wealth redistribution is an intentional effort to get all Americans bought into a system where everyone appears to benefit. ...
We should never demonize those who are successful. [aside: that is not what Occupy or the 99% are doing. G-d love the rich; more power to 'em. But ...] Nor should we pamper them with unnecessary welfare to create an appearance everyone is benefiting from federal programs. ...
The government’s social safety net, which has long existed to catch those who are down and help them get back up, is now being used as a hammock by some millionaires, some who are paying less taxes than average middle class families. Comprehensive information on the full range of government benefits enjoyed by millionaires has never been collected previously. This report provides the first such compilation. What it reveals is sheer Washington stupidity with government policies pampering the wealthy costing taxpayers billions of dollars every year.
And while some Democrats have gone along with some of the legislation that has led to this outcome, they are not by and large the party that has been promoting them for the past 4 decades.
But the bottom line is that if we stand any chance of reversing these policies, the only party actually working towards the goal of fixing this dangerous inequity is the Democrats.
Do you want to see the damage to this country fixed?
Vote for every Democrat on your ballot even if you have to hold your nose while doing so.
All of this keying, and so little facts.. How sad..
Tell m Jill, what do you think of the fact that Democrats STOPPED any mortgage reform which would have reduced the economic crisis and WANTED MORE of it?
Most Americans already know that Washington is broken, dems and cons.
Allow me to quote Krum from this same piece and the bigger issue at hand:
Yeah, that's nice ... except that it isn't true.
This notion that Barack Obama wants bigger government is a canard. Barack Obama wants a more efficient government and has been consistently enacting policies that work to that goal. The relative size of government is irrelevant. Nothing more than an hysterical talking point dreamed up long ago by a right wing strategist as a way to win elections.
You want to know who grew the government to its largest size ever?
George W. Bush. Not a Democrat.
George W. Bush rode into Washington almost eight years ago astride the horse of smaller government. He will leave it this winter having overseen the biggest federal budget expansion since Franklin Delano Roosevelt seven decades ago.
Not since World War II, when the nation mobilized to fight a global war against fascism and recover from the Great Depression, has government spending played as large a role in the economy as it does today.
This time, it is a rapid mobilization against another global enemy — Islamist terrorism — that lies behind much of the growth. But rising spending on discretionary domestic programs has also played its part.
“We have now presided over the largest increase in the size of government since the Great Society,” said Sen. John McCain, the Republican candidate vying to replace Mr. Bush in the White House (http://www.washingtontimes.com/themes/?Theme=The+White+House - broken link), during the first presidential debate.
I think the GOP started it slide into absurdity when it nominated Mr. Goldwater.
Funny thing, it was Goldwater who openly opposed Republican's creating a base out of the far right-wing. He knew what the eventual outcome would be.
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise."
And this gem: "When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."
The GOP has gone so far down the rabbit hole that Barry freaking Goldwater now seems like a liberal. Chew on that for a bit.
Federal government spending has risen under President Obama, mostly because of the $800 billion stimulus designed to offset the massive recession he inherited from President Bush. But the increase in federal spending under Obama is dwarfed by the colossal increase under President Bush.
. . . [see chart at source] . . .
[F]rom 2000 to 2008, under President Bush, Federal spending rose by $1.3 trillion, from $1.9 trillion a year to $3.2 trillion a year.
From 2009 to 2011, meanwhile, under President Obama, federal spending has risen by $600 billion, from $3.2 trillion a year to $3.8 trillion a year. It has also now begun to decline.
In other words, federal government spending under President Bush increased 2X as much as it has under President Obama.
This is the relevant data-point when we talk about the size of government. The number of employees is completely and utterly irrelevant. And a stupid argument to put forth.
The GOP has gone so far down the rabbit hole that Barry freaking Goldwater now seems like a liberal. Chew on that for a bit.
Good point. And yet the Republicans think the moment of victory is at hand? When I think of the Republican Party of today, I picture this with the letters GOP emblazoned on the side. It's only a matter of time.
Does that happen to include temporary census workers, as it does every ten years?
Who cares, really? The number of employees is not the metric used to determine the "size" of government. It's only republicans who want to have talking points who dig up these irrelevant markers to try to distract people.
Every single Republican today talks about being a Reagan conservative. This is a conservative that believes in small government, reducing federal spending and ultimately runs a lean and mean government. They talk about this stuff in campaigns, but in practice they failed miserably.
In fact HISTORICALLY, it is has been Democratic presidents who have reduced the size of the federal government. The Republicans have lied to the people so much that I believe the current crop somehow BELIEVES the history as they have been told, rather than researching the facts for themselves.
Who cares, really? The number of employees is not the metric used to determine the "size" of government. It's only republicans who want to have talking points who dig up these irrelevant markers to try to distract people.
This from the poster who essentially said government isnt growing because its growing less than under Bush
Who cares, really? The number of employees is not the metric used to determine the "size" of government. It's only republicans who want to have talking points who dig up these irrelevant markers to try to distract people.
You're expecting them to think beyond the rhetoric they are sent to regurgitate by their esteemed leaders (business and/or political) and media personalities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
